You are here

Brooklyn Medical Practice Good


Review carried out on 9 September 2021

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about Brooklyn Medical Practice on 9 September 2021. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.

This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.

If you have concerns about Brooklyn Medical Practice, you can give feedback on this service.

Review carried out on 22 May 2019

During an annual regulatory review

We reviewed the information available to us about Brooklyn Medical Practice on 22 May 2019. We did not find evidence of significant changes to the quality of service being provided since the last inspection. As a result, we decided not to inspect the surgery at this time. We will continue to monitor this information about this service throughout the year and may inspect the surgery when we see evidence of potential changes.

Inspection carried out on 15 March 2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Brooklyn Medical Practice on 15 March 2016. Overall the practice is rated as good.

Our key findings across all the areas we inspected were as follows:

  • There was an open and transparent approach to safety and an effective system in place for reporting and recording significant events. These were regularly discussed at practice meetings.
  • Risks to patients were assessed and well managed.
  • The premises were observed to be clean and tidy. Waiting areas were on two levels.
  • The practice had adequate facilities and was well equipped to treat patients and meet their needs. The treatment room had been refurbished to a good standard and new equipment had been purchased to facilitate storage and transportation of clinical items.
  • Staff assessed patients’ needs and delivered care in line with current evidence based guidance. Staff had the skills, knowledge and experience to deliver effective care and treatment.
  • Patients said they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and they were involved in their care and decisions about their treatment.
  • Information about services and how to complain was available and easy to understand.
  • Patients said they found it easy to make an appointment with a named GP and that there was continuity of care, with urgent appointments available the same day.
  • There was a clear leadership structure and staff felt supported by management. The practice proactively sought feedback from staff and patients, which it acted on.
  • The provider was aware of and complied with the requirements of the Duty of Candour.

  • The practice engaged with the clinical commissioning group and other practices in the locality to share learning.
  • This practice also operated a cross-referral process with local practices whereby GP specialities were utilised between practices to treat patients with specific conditions, for example dermatology clinics were provided by a GP at the practice with expertise in this field .

However, there was one area where the provider should make improvements;

  • The practice should be proactive in ensuring that all patients who are also carers are represented on the practice’s register of carers.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice